Microsoft CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 24, 20212020002285 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/894,448 05/15/2013 Varun Srinivasan 338820.01 1011 69316 7590 06/24/2021 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER GOLDEN, STEVE PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): chriochs@microsoft.com jkarr@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte VARUN SRINIVASAN, GREGORY AKSELROD, DAVID JOHN RASMUSSEN and EUN JU NAM _______________ Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 Technology Center 2100 _______________ Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19 through 22. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11 through 13, 16 through 18, and 23 through 30 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, is the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method in which a uniform resource locator (URL) link inserted into a note or document can be enhanced through a capture service for curation and collaboration applications. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method of enhancing a link in curation and collaboration applications, comprising: determining, from content inserted into a note of an application, a string of characters indicating a uniform resource locator (URL); upon determining the string of characters indicating the URL from the content inserted into the note, automatically calling a first web service to obtain a representation of content referenced by the URL by sending a request from the application to the first web service, wherein the request at least comprises the URL; and receiving the representation of the content referenced by the URL from the first web service in a format customized for the application, a computing device on which the application is implemented, or both; wherein the format customized for the application, the computing device on which the application is implemented, or both includes at least one of: removing advertisements from the representation of the content; separating readable text from the representation of the content to generate an image from the readable text; providing hyperlink recognition so that internal links shown in the representation of the content can be made live and selectable; and removing repetitive background content from the representation of the content. Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 8,255,819) and Chandra (US 2008/0005664). Final Act. 2–6. The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, Chandra and Brown (US 2012/0111936). Final Act. 7. The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 9, 10, 15, 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, Chandra, and Kremer (US 2002/0073058). Final Act. 7–10. The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, Chandra, and Matas (US 2007/0106952). Final Act. 14–15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19 through 22. Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 10, and 21 With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues that the 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 3, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed January 29, 2020 (Reply Br.); Final Office Action mailed March 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 29, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 4 combination of Chang and Chandra does not teach the steps of determining from content inserted in to a note, a string of characters indicating a uniform resource locator (URL), and upon determining the string of characters indicating the URL, automatically calling a first web service to obtain a representation of the content as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–14. Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 1 requires a string of the characters representing a URL, that is within the content inserted, is recognized and used to obtain a representation of the content corresponding to the URL. Appeal Br. 10–12. Additionally, Appellant argues that the claim recites upon determining the character string contains a URL automatically loading the content, and that Chang contains “no teaching or suggestion of an automated process whereby upon determining that there is URL as part of the content of a note, the content referenced by the URL is requested and a customized representation is received.” Appeal Br. 13. Further, Appellant argues that: Chang requires a user to navigate back to the original URL found within the metadata. Therefore, Chang does not describe automatically calling a first web service to obtain a representation of content referenced by the URL “upon determining the string of characters indicating the URL from the content inserted into the note.” Reply Br. 4 (citing claim 1 and Ans. 5). The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, noting that claim 1 does not recite a limitation that precludes the string of characters representing the URL from being in metadata and finds that Chang discloses content stored in notebooks which includes a URL. Ans. 3 (citing Chang col. 6, ll. 8–24). The Examiner states “[w]ithin the broadest interpretation of the claim limitation it is determined that a ‘string of characters’ representing Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 5 a URL can be read from metadata that has been inserted into a note (i.e., the metadata discussed by Change includes the URL).” Ans. 4. Further, regarding the claim 1 limitation of “automatically calling a first web service to obtain a representation of content referenced by the URL” the Examiner states: the instant application’s specification, pars. 26-28, it does state that “a screenshot of the content referenced by the URL can automatically be displayed in the note when the URL is determined.” However, when the specification references the process of “calling a web service” (where it is noted that the claim states “automatically calling a first web service”), the specification states that process “refers to an action (or actions) that a client application performs to use the web service.” (par. 28). Therefore, the claimed “automatically calling a first web service,” at best, should merely be interpreted as all computer processes are in a sense automated processes (i.e., not all processes within a computer occur manually). Ans. 7. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Initially, we concur with the Examiner that the insertion of content into a note of an application limitation of claim 1 is taught by Chang, we do not see a difference from Appellant’s method of clipping a URL (discussed in paragraph 18 of the Specification “a user provides a link or takes note of a URL for a webpage … information may be copied or ‘clipped’ into a note”) and that discussed by Chang in col. 15, ll. 41–55 (“content can be copied into the notebook … [f]or example, a user may only wish to copy the Universal Resource Locator”). However, having a URL in the content of the note alone does not meet the claim limitation, which recites a method step of determining a string of characters indicates a URL. The Examiner has not shown that Chang teaches making such a Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 6 determination. Further, method claim 1 recites that based upon the determination, a step of automatically calling the web service to obtain the representation of the content referenced by the URL is performed. Thus, regardless of whether “all computer processes are in a sense automated processes” as stated by the Examiner, the claim predicates the automatic step on the determination step. As the Examiner has not shown that the determining step is taught or obvious, the Examiner has also not demonstrated that the step of automatically loading the content, based upon the determination that the string of characters is a URL, is taught or obvious over the teachings. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejections of dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 10, and 21 which similarly rely upon the teachings of Chang to teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. Independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15, 19, 20 and 22 With respect to independent claim 14, Appellant argues that the combination of Chang and Chandra do not teach “rendering, using a virtual machine generated by the server, content accessed from a resource at the URL” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant argues that the portion of Chang cited by the Examiner provides that the server may produce a blend that is identical to that produced by a browser but “includes no mention of a rendering process or virtual machines; and servers do not normally have a display in which to render content.” Appeal Br. 16 (citing the Advisory Action mailed Aug. 8, 2019). The Examiner cites to Chang as teaching the disputed limitation and states: Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 7 Chang discloses: (Column 4, lines 26-29, that the server can store notebook information instead of it being stored on each client computer, and Column 25, lines 3- 22 further discloses that various other modifications may be made, such as the server (not the client) may implement the same effect on a selected image using an identical function as the browser (which would be on a client device). This teaching follows the same definition of virtual machines as described in the instant application’ specification (par. 62), where the server can implement a “virtualization” process (act as a client’s browser), while not being restricted to only the resources available to a single machine (client). Chang specifically discloses: (Column 25, lines 16-19, “the server may implement the effect with a different algorithm or process, one that is not limited by the constraints that may be in place for the browser”). Even though Chang doesn’t specifically state the term “virtual machine” a person skilled in the art would understand that the process of a virtual machine is fully capable within the system taught by Chang. Ans. 8 Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14. Claim 14 recites “rendering, using a virtual machine generated by the server, content accessed from a resource at the URL.” Thus, the claim recites that the virtual machine renders content from a URL. Appellant’s Specification identifies a virtual machine is a “virtualization” of a physical computer system. Spec. ¶62. We have reviewed the cited teachings of Chang which state: the server described above may implement the same effect on a selected image using an identical function as the browser. That is, the server may produce a blend that is identical to the blend produced by the browser. Chang col. 25, ll. 11–16. We do not find that this discussion teaches or has the Examiner sufficiently shown that it demonstrates that the server is either Appeal 2020-002285 Application 13/894,448 8 a virtualization of a computer system or that the server performs a rendering of retrieved content. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 or the rejections of dependent claims 15, 19, 20, and 22 which similarly rely upon the teachings of Chang to teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19 through 22. Claims Rejected 35 U. S. C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 14 103 Chang, Chandra 1, 14 4 103 Chang, Chandra, Brown 4 7, 9, 10, 15, 20–22 103 Chang, Chandra, Kremer 7, 9, 10, 15, 20–22 19 103 Chang, Chandra, Matas 19 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 – 22 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation